State v. Yusef L.

Syllabus

Convicted, on guilty pleas of the crimes of violation of a protective order and strangulation in the second degree and on an admission to violation of probation, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly denied his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because they were not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because it failed to determine whether he fully understood the maximum possible sentence that could result from consecutive sentences: the court informed the defendant that, if he were to plead guilty, he could receive up to five years in prison and five years of probation for each charge, and, although the defendant gave one word responses, they still represented a clear communication from the defendant to the court that he understood the maximum possible sentence before him; moreover, the defendant had prior experience with criminal proceedings, and, by his own admission, received adequate representation by counsel; accordingly, the court substantially complied with the applicable rule of practice (§ 39-19 (4)). 2. The trial court properly rejected the defendant's unpreserved claims seeking review pursuant to State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), which challenged the court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas: a. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court incorrectly advised him that a mandatory minimum sentence applied: although the defendant was correct that no mandatory minimum sen- tence applied with respect to the charges of strangulation in the second degree and violation of a protective order, his claim failed under the third prong of Golding because no constitutional violation occurred; the court never informed the defendant of the application of any mandatory minimum sentence, rather, the court explained the structure of the sen- tence to b